Rice J Bradford, Desai Urvi, Ristovska Ljubica, Cummings Alice Kate G, Birnbaum Howard G, Skornicki Michelle, Margolis David J, Parsons Nathan B
a a Analysis Group, Inc. , Boston , MA , USA.
b b Organogenesis, Inc. , Canton , MA , USA.
J Med Econ. 2015;18(8):586-95. doi: 10.3111/13696998.2015.1031793. Epub 2015 Apr 22.
To assess the real-world medical services utilization and associated costs of Medicare patients with diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) treated with Apligraf (bioengineered living cellular construct (BLCC)) or Dermagraft (human fibroblast-derived dermal substitute (HFDS)) compared with those receiving conventional care (CC).
DFU patients were selected from Medicare de-identified administrative claims using ICD-9-CM codes. The analysis followed an 'intent-to-treat' design, with cohorts assigned based on use of (1) BLCC, (2) HFDS, or (3) CC (i.e., ≥1 claim for a DFU-related treatment procedure or podiatrist visit and no evidence of skin substitute use) for treatment of DFU in 2006-2012. Propensity score models were used to separately match BLCC and HFDS patients to CC patients with similar baseline demographics, wound severity, and physician experience measures. Medical resource use, lower-limb amputation rates, and total healthcare costs (2012 USD; from payer perspective) during the 18 months following treatment initiation were compared among the resulting matched samples.
Data for 502 matched BLCC-CC patient pairs and 222 matched HFDS-CC patient pairs were analyzed. Increased costs associated with outpatient service utilization relative to matched CC patients were offset by lower amputation rates (-27.6% BLCC, -22.2% HFDS), fewer days hospitalized (-33.3% BLCC, -42.4% HFDS), and fewer emergency department visits (-32.3% BLCC, -25.7% HFDS) among BLCC/HFDS patients. Consequently, BLCC and HFDS patients had per-patient average healthcare costs during the 18-month follow-up period that were lower than their respective matched CC counterparts (-$5253 BLCC, -$6991 HFDS).
Findings relied on accuracy of diagnosis and procedure codes contained in the claims data, and did not account for outcomes and costs beyond 18 months after treatment initiation.
These findings suggest that use of BLCC and HFDS for treatment of DFU may lower overall medical costs through reduced utilization of costly healthcare services.
评估与接受传统护理(CC)的医疗保险患者相比,使用奥普蒂格拉夫(生物工程活细胞构建体(BLCC))或德玛格拉夫(人成纤维细胞衍生真皮替代物(HFDS))治疗糖尿病足溃疡(DFU)的医疗保险患者的实际医疗服务利用情况及相关成本。
使用国际疾病分类第九版临床修正版(ICD - 9 - CM)编码从医疗保险去识别行政索赔中选择DFU患者。分析采用“意向性治疗”设计,根据2006 - 2012年用于治疗DFU的情况将队列分为:(1)BLCC,(2)HFDS,或(3)CC(即与DFU相关治疗程序或足病医生就诊的≥1次索赔且无使用皮肤替代物的证据)。倾向评分模型用于分别将BLCC和HFDS患者与具有相似基线人口统计学、伤口严重程度和医生经验指标的CC患者进行匹配。在所得匹配样本中比较治疗开始后18个月内的医疗资源使用、下肢截肢率和总医疗费用(2012美元;从支付方角度)。
分析了502对匹配的BLCC - CC患者对和222对匹配的HFDS - CC患者对的数据。与匹配的CC患者相比,门诊服务利用相关成本的增加被BLCC/HFDS患者较低的截肢率(BLCC为 - 27.6%,HFDS为 - 22.2%)、较少的住院天数(BLCC为 - 33.3%,HFDS为 - 42.4%)和较少的急诊科就诊次数(BLCC为 - 32.3%,HFDS为 - 25.7%)所抵消。因此,BLCC和HFDS患者在18个月随访期内的人均平均医疗费用低于各自匹配的CC患者(BLCC为 - 5253美元,HFDS为 - 6991美元)。
研究结果依赖于索赔数据中诊断和程序编码的准确性,且未考虑治疗开始后18个月后的结果和成本。
这些发现表明,使用BLCC和HFDS治疗DFU可能通过减少昂贵医疗服务的使用来降低总体医疗成本。